Advocacy & Safety - UK hits "peak car." Could the US be so lucky?

"Something weird is happening," says Phil Goodwin, professor of transport policy at the University of the West of England. "Car use in Britain is on the decline, but no one is exactly sure why." Goodwin says we have reached "peak car". If he is right, this has important implications for how we design our towns and cities, and where public money gets allocated.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/features/is-this-the-end-of-the-car-2286616.html

Could the US be so "lucky"?
Sure hope not. Their steep gas taxes suck. And congestion fees. And...

:lol: @ peak car.

Their steep gas taxes suck.

Tell me about it :notamused:

The US isn't there. We're still about growth. Even though funding is short, there're still proposals for new highways.

Shoot, just this month Douglas cnty, CO approved a new development that would be nothing more than a bedroom community.

We're still as car dependent as ever.

As long as our road network is still being expanded further, we won't hit "peak car". More roads = more convenience = more car use.

I could see it happening in some places where there isn't any physical room to expand the roads much further, like NYC or LA though. In those places, it's simply not practical to add more cars because the road network is already at saturation levels and can't be expanded much further. So even if people would like to make it more convenient to drive around, it's not a realistic possibility. At that point, people will begin to explore alternatives to driving everywhere and sitting in traffic burning gas.

It'd be nice if U.S. car/energy/infrastructure policy were a bit more rational, in my view. A bunch of people are vehemently against the idea of higher gas taxes simply because they can't imagine a different world from what we currently live in, but that would be one good way we could start to spur a transition away from cars (and it's a scalable one that could be ramped up slowly over time and wouldn't impose a top-down solution on the system). It would also help to stem the tide of U.S. wealth leaving our country in order to buy oil by discouraging its use, and would raise a lot of revenue we could use for anything we like, such as reducing the national debt, building better infrastructure, researching alternative energy or transportation, and so on. We also aren't paying enough in taxes to maintain the infrastructure we've already built, so it doesn't make sense to build more and worsen the problem until we can get that problem under control.

As long as our road network is still being expanded further, we won't hit "peak car". More roads = more convenience = more car use.

I could see it happening in some places where there isn't any physical room to expand the roads much further, like NYC or LA though. In those places, it's simply not practical to add more cars because the road network is already at saturation levels and can't be expanded much further. So even if people would like to make it more convenient to drive around, it's not a realistic possibility. At that point, people will begin to explore alternatives to driving everywhere and sitting in traffic burning gas.

It'd be nice if U.S. car/energy/infrastructure policy were a bit more rational, in my view. A bunch of people are vehemently against the idea of higher gas taxes simply because they can't imagine a different world from what we currently live in, but that would be one good way we could start to spur a transition away from cars (and it's a scalable one that could be ramped up slowly over time and wouldn't impose a top-down solution on the system). It would also help to stem the tide of U.S. wealth leaving our country in order to buy oil by discouraging its use, and would raise a lot of revenue we could use for anything we like, such as reducing the national debt, building better infrastructure, researching alternative energy or transportation, and so on. We also aren't paying enough in taxes to maintain the infrastructure we've already built, so it doesn't make sense to build more and worsen the problem until we can get that problem under control.

^^^^ Now that just all makes too much sense... do you really think we can be all that logical and cunning as a nation... when the very stories that seem to get the most attention are about Snookie, Beiber and "Dancing with the Idols..." (or whatever it's called) and our government wastes huge amounts of time on such heady subjects such as birth certificates and flag burning?

Nah, I have a feeling we'll just go along with the CEO of Exxon telling us how much money they don't make, and that congress had better approve yet another tax incentive... while the local developer bribes some road contractor to "thin the mix a bit" and the average driver has more concern for their morning coffee than a fellow human scrambling to work on an "alternate form of transit..." all while wondering "gee, what's on TV tonight..."

the beat goes on....

In 2008, when gas here first hit $4 and the recession hit hard, the number of car miles driven dropped, and the national "fleet"--the number of registered cars on the road--actually dropped, something that hadn't happened before in our postwar economy. Of course, this turned out to be a temporary event, as new car sales recovered. So I don't think the US is at peak car yet.

We are way too spread out. The whole of Great Britain is smaller than many single US states.

We are way too spread out. The whole of Great Britain is smaller than many single US states.

Wouldn't be such a problem if we weren't so concerned with preserving the Rural Way of Life (tm) at all costs. Freight trains can ship goods over long distances pretty efficiently.

$20/gal fuel is exactly what the US needs. If nothing else, it would lead to smaller, slower cars for people who are too lazy or twee to be their own engines. If you reduce weight by half, and speed by half, you only need 1/16 the energy to get down the road. They say that people will buy the most horsepower they can afford, but what they're really buying is accelleration. With better, deeper gearing, you can make a 1500 lb, 35 HP car accelerate just as fast as a 3500 lb, 220 hop car. If the car won't ever go faster than 80 or so, why have the excess power?

Sure, gas taxes suck. Why, we pay like 22 cents on the gallon in taxes!! How confiscatory! I know the naysayers love to point to Amtrack and say "It's subsidized!" Sure is, to the tune of about $40/pax/yr. Compare that with the Interstate highway system, which is subsidized at close to $500/pax/yr. Which one makes more sense now?

East of the Mississippi, any decent-sized town is on a river, most of them navigable by boat, sometimes quite large boats. As efficient as rail is, barge haulage is more efficient still. Barge traffic burns less fuel per ton per mile, requires very little infrastructure maintenance, and takes the incredibly wasteful tractor-trailers off our crumbling roads and bridges.

Cable cars, aerial tramways, and funiculars can move HUGE amounts of cargo on next to now power input-- and a cable-car system has a tiny footprint, both in the geometrical sense and the carbon. Man, if there were a cable-car system runningin parallel with the Interstate highways, something that could handle a 40-foot container ever few hundred feet (800 ton/mile/hr is the figure I see listed as a reasonable maximum for these systems), how many trucks would that take off the road? How much longer would the highways last without the trucks pounding it to pieces?

These are solveable problems. The unsolvable part is making the paradigm shift. And (putting this delicately) given the political climate in the US for the forseeable future, any attempt at greening the transportation industry will be met with howls of execration from the Usual Suspects.

We are way too spread out. The whole of Great Britain is smaller than many single US states.

BS.

Few people commute from state to state daily... the average commute is only about 12 miles, and most errands are 2-3 miles. Most daily travel is very very local.

I find it more than ironic that the same people that say there is no room for bike paths and cycling highways also say that the US is too big and spread out... you cannot have both...

The truth is that Americans have been "taught" to love cars and only think in terms of cars... so even a silly little run to the corner store often has people driving what is nothing more than a 1/4 to 1/2 mile... and it shows in the general obesity epidemic in our nation.

$20/gal fuel is exactly what the US needs.
This thread is exactly what P&R needs!

I know the naysayers love to point to Amtrack and say "It's subsidized!" Sure is, to the tune of about $40/pax/yr. Compare that with the Interstate highway system, which is subsidized at close to $500/pax/yr. Which one makes more sense now?


Well since EVERY TAXPAYER (and every resident for that matter) receives a real tangible benefit from the highway system--even those who never use it directly, and far less than 1% receive ANY benefit from Amtrack, it seems pretty clear that using your logic the Interstate Highway System makes more sense.

I'm all for shutting Amtrack down... I'm guessing that if put to a vote, such a plan would pass with a super majority.

P.S.

Interstate cable cars for cargo transport? You really don't know much about freight transport if you think such an idea has any viability...

do you really think we can be all that logical and cunning as a nation... when the very stories that seem to get the most attention are about Snookie, Beiber and "Dancing with the Idols..." (or whatever it's called)It's called "Dancing with egos". Educate thyself.

I want to go on record with saying that higher taxes on gas, and I mean much higher, is the way to go. Reduce the consumption of precious hydrocarbons, decrease the polluting usage of cars, increase the healthy lifestyle of walking, running, cycling, skating etc. Less pollution, less road congestion, less land-whales. Win-win-win.

BS.

Few people commute from state to state daily... the average commute is only about 12 miles, and most errands are 2-3 miles. Most daily travel is very very local.

I find it more than ironic that the same people that say there is no room for bike paths and cycling highways also say that the US is too big and spread out... you cannot have both...

The truth is that Americans have been "taught" to love cars and only think in terms of cars... so even a silly little run to the corner store often has people driving what is nothing more than a 1/4 to 1/2 mile... and it shows in the general obesity epidemic in our nation.

In most parts of the country, even in bigger cities, there is no efficient system of mass transit similar to what Europeans have. They have been land-crunched over there for a long time and have started to deal with it. People here are not going to give up a 10 minute car ride to perform an errand in order to replace it with a 30-45 minute bus ride. Sure, it'd be great if more people biked but a bike is not a replacement for a vehicle if you are an average family out in the burbs.

Also if you read the article it indicates that London is a major contributor to the skewing of this statistic which further supports the idea that it really is an urban phenomenon.

In most parts of the country, even in bigger cities, there is no efficient system of mass transit similar to what Europeans have. They have been land-crunched over there for a long time and have started to deal with it. People here are not going to give up a 10 minute car ride to perform an errand in order to replace it with a 30-45 minute bus ride. Sure, it'd be great if more people biked but a bike is not a replacement for a vehicle if you are an average family out in the burbs.

Also if you read the article it indicates that London is a major contributor to the skewing of this statistic which further supports the idea that it really is an urban phenomenon.

There was.

Cars, as we have today, have only been around for about 100 years. They did not even become terribly popular until after WW2. Prior to that, cities had good transit systems... from buses to trolleys to local trains... you name it. There were even songs written about these transit systems.

The issue is that cars represented "a new way," and that new way meant independence for the masses and for cities... the latter which dropped support and design of transit systems and pushed the costs out to the individual... and also stopped designing cities for people, but moved toward developing cities for cars... with the resulting suburbs, and exburbs and freeways to nowhere and twice daily "rush hour."

Now larger cities are seeing peak car in the form of gridlock... NYC has seen it, LA lives it, and Portland has decided to do something else...

Our current "experiment" in transit freedom has just about run it's course... cars have a proper place... and it just isn't "everywhere."

Bicycles are not the ultimate answer either... diversity is... and planning on how to move people... not just cars. In the city, that may mean a subway or trolley system, or moving sidewalks or proper bike paths. On the edge of the city, this may mean garages for cars. Further out, high speed trains may be more efficient for city to city travel. But the bottom line is to stop focusing on the individual motor vehicle as the answer for all transit needs; this is neither sustainable or efficient.

In most parts of the country, even in bigger cities, there is no efficient system of mass transit similar to what Europeans have. They have been land-crunched over there for a long time and have started to deal with it. People here are not going to give up a 10 minute car ride to perform an errand in order to replace it with a 30-45 minute bus ride. Sure, it'd be great if more people biked but a bike is not a replacement for a vehicle if you are an average family out in the burbs.


It's a chicken-and-egg thing. People don't use public transit because public transit sucks, and public transit sucks because people don't use it...
It doesn't have to be that way, but it is in the U.S. simply because the choices we've made skew things in that way. People need to understand that this is all about choices that are under our control, not some inevitable law of nature.

I want to go on record with saying that higher taxes on gas, and I mean much higher, is the way to go. Reduce the consumption of precious hydrocarbons, decrease the polluting usage of cars, increase the healthy lifestyle of walking, running, cycling, skating etc. Less pollution, less road congestion, less land-whales. Win-win-win.
I want to go on record with saying that higher taxes suck (they're already way too high). So does government nannyism and further intrusion into our lives. Cars are awesome, especially cuz I can use them to drive to far away places to bicycle.

Bicycles are not the ultimate answer either... diversity is... and planning on how to move people... not just cars. In the city, that may mean a subway or trolley system, or moving sidewalks or proper bike paths. On the edge of the city, this may mean garages for cars. Further out, high speed trains may be more efficient for city to city travel. But the bottom line is to stop focusing on the individual motor vehicle as the answer for all transit needs; this is neither sustainable or efficient.

I 100% agree with all this. For me, it's all about using the proper tool for each job, instead of trying to spend untold amounts of money, land, and even lives in order to force a one-size-fits-all solution built around the car. Americans seem to have this idea that cars represent "freedom", but in many ways they rob us of our freedom. They certainly do provide travel flexibility, and I think that's something that's worth holding on to. But they aren't the best available solution for urban commutes featuring millions of people or for short 1/4 mile trips to the store.

I like the Japanese model in many of their denser cities and suburbs: many people own cars, but don't use them for day-to-day urban commuting (instead, they often do that via a combination of trains + walking or trains + biking). Cars are used for trips that are much more convenient with a car, such as when you need to haul bulkier items, go somewhere that isn't well-served by public transit, or go on an out-of-town trip to somewhere away from the high speed rail lines and airports. In other words, they use different tools for different jobs. They kind of have to, since they have so many people packed into a space the size of California.

I want to go on record with saying that higher taxes suck (they're already way too high). So does government nannyism and further intrusion into our lives. Cars are awesome, especially cuz I can use them to drive to far away places to bicycle.

The overall U.S. tax burden is actually historically low at the moment. If you think they're way too high now, then you're advocating for a radical change to how the U.S. has always worked.

As for "government nannyism and further intrusion into our lives": why do you consider the car to be a promoter of freedom, while good mass transit and bike facilities are not? All our car infrastructure is a massive exercise in government involvement in society. That's fine if you think that's a good thing, but let's be honest and admit that all transportation infrastructure, including roads for cars, involves centralized government planning. No one transportation choice is inherently more or less "socialized" than any other. They may be in their implementation, but that's not something that in inevitably associated with cars vs. mass transit vs. bikes.

I want to go on record with saying that higher taxes suck (they're already way too high). So does government nannyism and further intrusion into our lives. Cars are awesome, especially cuz I can use them to drive to far away places to bicycle.
You know, it's not like there's anything you can do about gas prices: it's a megatrend - gas prices are going to rise, no matter how much the US govt tries to keep them down. So get ready to say buh-bye to your awesome cars. And if you live in a place that absolutely needs a car (very far from city/town center), watch your property value drop like a stone.

Actually, our current govt is doing pretty much all it can to keep gas prices high by banning drilling, etc. As for taxes being historically low, everywhere you look they've been rising: property taxes, elimination of exemptions, sales taxes, Amazon tax grabs, higher fees instead of taxes, etc. etc. etc.

Actually, our current govt is doing pretty much all it can to keep gas prices high by banning drilling, etc. As for taxes being historically low, everywhere you look they've been rising: property taxes, elimination of exemptions, sales taxes, Amazon tax grabs, higher fees instead of taxes, etc. etc. etc.This is a ringing example of confirmation bias. There are other reasons to ban drilling, "etc." than offering a sop to the energy companies. Mind you, I can see where you might be right-- but I'm going to want to see some non-partisan, fully vetted and peer-reviewed research on this.

I'm okay with paying taxes. I don't need much, I don't have much and I don't earn much so I don't pay much.


If you find your tax burden to be untenable, you are always free to work for less money and live in humbler housing. There is nothing in any body of case law which says government must be responsible for ensuring or continuing profits to private industry. There is nothing in any body of case law which says government must be responsible for ensuring or continuing disproprotionately low taxes for private industry or private citizens. And the great judge Learned Hand once famously said "There is nothing inherently sinister in so arranging one's life as to pay the lowest taxes available."

This thread is exactly what P&R needs!

P&R? What's that?

I'm okay with paying taxes.
Not me, not when we're taxed every which way, govt is so incredibly wasteful, govt employees are compensated so lavishly, and so on...

They say that people will buy the most horsepower they can afford, but what they're really buying is accelleration. With better, deeper gearing, you can make a 1500 lb, 35 HP car accelerate just as fast as a 3500 lb, 220 hop car. If the car won't ever go faster than 80 or so, why have the excess power?

You are incorrect. Gearing only multiplies torque, not power. The difference between torque and power is based on rpm, so as soon as you gear up the axle to get more torque, the rpm is reduced at the same rate and power remains the same. If we are talking about horsepower and pound-feet, the conversion constant is 5252.

Horsepower =Torque X RPM / 5252

Yes and no. While gearing only does multiply torque (at the expense of rotational velocity: trading power for distance; folding the lever, if you will, or adding more pulleys to the block-and-tackle), this ignores that power is work (in this case, torque) over time. The "time" factor is compensated by shifting gears. How fast you shift is a determinator of how fast you can accelerate, as is how fast the engine can rev up. A racing engine with a very light valvetrain and flywheel but the same HP/torque figures as a stock motor will spin up faster and so accelerate faster. Also, your statement assumes a 'lightswitch' powerband, when many small engines put out remarkably smooth and flat torque curves. There are a lot of factors at work here, but don't let's forget that torque is what moves the vehicle down the road. Power is what makes it happen quickly.

@Gbiker: "Gov't employees are compensated so lavishly?" In what country do you live, again? Wasn't it just a couple years ago that staying in the public sector was considered a chump move, because the compensation was so much better in the private sector? Heavens, it's like you've been lied to or been fed disinformation or something. Government employees are compensated not quite as well as equivalent positions in the pubvlic sector, and the threshold for admission is usually higher: security clearances, educational requirements, longer hours, what have you. I know you wish to believe otherwise, but the facts are NOT on your side here.

Since we're arguing politics which is a BIG NO NO outside the premium areas, why don't you come debate this with me on another forum, say Liberalforum.org or Democraticunderground. Double-dog dare ya. If you think you can hang.

Yes and no. While gearing only does multiply torque (at the expense of rotational velocity: trading power for distance; folding the lever, if you will, or adding more pulleys to the block-and-tackle), this ignores that power is work (in this case, torque) over time. The "time" factor is compensated by shifting gears. How fast you shift is a determinator of how fast you can accelerate, as is how fast the engine can rev up. A racing engine with a very light valvetrain and flywheel but the same HP/torque figures as a stock motor will spin up faster and so accelerate faster. Also, your statement assumes a 'lightswitch' powerband, when many small engines put out remarkably smooth and flat torque curves. There are a lot of factors at work here, but don't let's forget that torque is what moves the vehicle down the road. Power is what makes it happen quickly.

In short, no. The laws of physics can not be broken.

@Gbiker: "Gov't employees are compensated so lavishly?" In what country do you live, again? Wasn't it just a couple years ago that staying in the public sector was considered a chump move, because the compensation was so much better in the private sector? Heavens, it's like you've been lied to or been fed disinformation or something. Government employees are compensated not quite as well as equivalent positions in the pubvlic sector, and the threshold for admission is usually higher: security clearances, educational requirements, longer hours, what have you. I know you wish to believe otherwise, but the facts are NOT on your side here.

Since we're arguing politics which is a BIG NO NO outside the premium areas, why don't you come debate this with me on another forum, say Liberalforum.org or Democraticunderground. Double-dog dare ya. If you think you can hang.
It's no wonder you believe such nonsense, hanging out in such radically left-wing echo chambers. It's a waste of my time on such forums. There's plenty of info about how govt workers are compensated much better than private sector workers.

If you reduce weight by half, and speed by half, you only need 1/16 the energy to get down the road.

I'm not so sure that this is correct, due to the wasted energy in an automobiles drivetrain, among other things.

You're saying that for all cars, a car half the speed and half the weight will use 1/16 the gas. If I drive a one ton pickup one mile at 60 mph, and a 1/2 ton pickup one mile at 30 mph, according to you, the one ton pickup will have used 16 times as much gas as the 1/2 ton pickup. I find that hard to believe.

P&R? What's that?

This:



Since we're arguing politics which is a BIG NO NO outside the premium areas, why don't you come debate this with me on another forum, say Liberalforum.org or Democraticunderground. Double-dog dare ya. If you think you can hang.

How 'bout taking your political harangues to Politics & Religion? You and the rest of the political gurus NOT discussing BICYLING advocacy nor BICYLING safety.

I'm not so sure that this is correct, due to the wasted energy in an automobiles drivetrain, among other things.

You're saying that for all cars, a car half the speed and half the weight will use 1/16 the gas. If I drive a one ton pickup one mile at 60 mph, and a 1/2 ton pickup one mile at 30 mph, according to you, the one ton pickup will have used 16 times as much gas as the 1/2 ton pickup. I find that hard to believe.This ignores the GVW and relies on published capacity. although if you look at the relative sizes of an ACTUAL 1/2 ton vs. an ACTUAL 1-ton pickup (you will have to dredge through the brochures from ca. 20 yr ago) you will see what I mean. Or if you prefer, compare a 1978 Honda CVCC with a 1988 Civic. You'll see what I mean.

Gbiker, take my challenge. Come debate this on your own without someone else to help fight your battle. Debate this with the materials you find on your own without being led to it. come dance with The Blight on Democratic Underground.

Geez, what's with the sexist taunts?? No thanks. Been there, done that. It's all radical left-wingers on sites like that who gang up on anybody who's not. And then when you trounce them all in debate, they ban or try other stuff like the Fairness Doctrine (banning writ large).

This ignores the GVW and relies on published capacity. although if you look at the relative sizes of an ACTUAL 1/2 ton vs. an ACTUAL 1-ton pickup (you will have to dredge through the brochures from ca. 20 yr ago) you will see what I mean. Or if you prefer, compare a 1978 Honda CVCC with a 1988 Civic. You'll see what I mean.

Gbiker, take my challenge. I dare you, if you think you're man enough. Come debate this on your own without someone else to help fight your battle. Debate this with the materials you find on your own without being led to it. come dance with The Blight on Democratic Underground if you think you're man enough. I don't think you are.
You could just go fight in the Politics & Religion forum here. I am *sure* they would love you.

In short, no. The laws of physics can not be broken.E=M (V^2). Do the math yourself.

E=M (V^2). Do the math yourself.

You are failing at is the application of said equation. You are confusing Velocity and Acceleration.

You also have forgotten to account for aerodynamics, which at highway speeds, are a much greater factor than weight.

This ignores the GVW and relies on published capacity.

True, but I still don't believe you. In fact, the idea of 1/16th the energy as a constant is easily proven wrong by factoring in wind resistance at differenct speeds. Imagine Car A weighs x# and travels at 1 mph. Imagine Car B weighs 2*x# and travels at 2 mph. According to your theory, Car B uses 16x the energy to maintain that speed as Car A. Soon they both accelerate until Car A is going 50 mph and Car B is going 100 mph. You expect me to believe that it still takes 16x the energy for Car B to maintain the speed? No way Jose. I don't buy your gross oversimplification.

You are failing at is the application of said equation. You are confusing Velocity and Acceleration.

You also have forgotten to account for aerodynamics, which at highway speeds, are a much greater factor than weight.I really hate taking sides in this debate, but my impression is that Cap. Blight may have also forgotten that energy ("E" in the equation, which by the way should be E=(m*v^2)/2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Newtonian_kinetic_energy)) is not the same as power. An object moving with velocity v will have a kinetic energy of E=(m*v^2)/2, and if it were in a frictionless environment, said energy would remain unchanged. For example, a spacecraft in outer space can move at the same velocity for a very long time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1).

True, but I still don't believe you. In fact, the idea of 1/16th the energy as a constant is easily proven wrong by factoring in wind resistance at differenct speeds. Imagine Car A weighs x# and travels at 1 mph. Imagine Car B weighs 2*x# and travels at 2 mph. According to your theory, Car B uses 16x the energy to maintain that speed as Car A. Soon they both accelerate until Car A is going 50 mph and Car B is going 100 mph. You expect me to believe that it still takes 16x the energy for Car B to maintain the speed? No way Jose. I don't buy your gross oversimplification.
Again, energy and power are not the same thing.

Again, energy and power are not the same thing.
I'm not referring to the kinetic energy of the already rolling vehicle in a frictionless environment, air-free environment, but the energy required to keep a vehicle at a constant velocity. There will not be a constant factor for all circumstances of 1/16.

...And I see that I was wrong. It's not 1/16th. It's 1/8th.

The ratio of the energies required to maintain constant velocity for all given cars where (weight and speed of A) = 2*(weight and speed of B) will not be a constant. Not 16x, not 8x, not 4x, not 123.99999x, and not e^pi. It will be different under different circumstances.

I'm not referring to the kinetic energy of the already rolling vehicle in a frictionless environment, air-free environment, but the energy required to keep a vehicle at a constant velocity. There will not be a constant factor for all circumstances of 1/16.

Sure, but energy and power are not the same. Bear that in mind to keep the discussion relevant, otherwise all you do is argue with each other while not talking about the same thing. I am not taking sides in thsi argument, just noting that if you don't understand the difference between energy and power, your argument is just a typical internet piss contest, where nobody can be right because neither is actually talking about the same thing even.

In 2008, when gas here first hit $4 and the recession hit hard, the number of car miles driven dropped, and the national "fleet"--the number of registered cars on the road--actually dropped, something that hadn't happened before in our postwar economy. Of course, this turned out to be a temporary event, as new car sales recovered. So I don't think the US is at peak car yet.

I remember back in 2008 I was visiting the US, and even at $4 the cost per mile to drive the 4-litre Ford Explorer I'd rented was still marginally less than the cost per mile to drive my 2-litre sensible family car back home. I also noticed how many people had big V8 pickups on credit that they couldn't afford to drive because of the gas prices and couldn't afford to sell because nobody wanted them, because of the gas prices.


We are way too spread out. The whole of Great Britain is smaller than many single US states.

Very true. A 600-mile drive in one day (e.g. from SC to PA) is a viable proposition in the US. 600 miles in one day in the UK isn't something I'd even consider, and even if I did it would be almost end-to-end across the entire country.


BS.

Few people commute from state to state daily... the average commute is only about 12 miles, and most errands are 2-3 miles. Most daily travel is very very local.

Depends where you live I guess. The people I know in the US live in small towns where to get to the next town along is 10 miles each way. If you want to go to the nearest big town it's 25-30 miles each way. Throw in a bunch of mountains and going by bike ceases to be a sensible proposition.

Depends where you live I guess. The people I know in the US live in small towns where to get to the next town along is 10 miles each way. If you want to go to the nearest big town it's 25-30 miles each way. Throw in a bunch of mountains and going by bike ceases to be a sensible proposition.


Those people also do not represent the majority population in America... Yeah there are folks that live away from town... and there are folks that even commute 120 miles or more daily, but again these folks do NOT represent MOST of the population... who do in fact tend to commute only about 12 miles and run errands of about 2-3 miles.

Those people also do not represent the majority population in America... Yeah there are folks that live away from town... and there are folks that even commute 120 miles or more daily, but again these folks do NOT represent MOST of the population... who do in fact tend to commute only about 12 miles and run errands of about 2-3 miles.
I found this link to census on average commute time (http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/lp0207_CommuteTime.html)


Information released by the Census Bureau shows that commuting times are increasing across the country as more people are spending more time alone in their car. Average commute times to work in the U.S. increased an average of 3.1 minutes, from 22.4 to 25.5 minutes, from 1990-2000 according to Census numbers.



The part that shocked me the most is the following:

At the same time, the number of people driving alone increased 2.5 percent (73.2 percent to 75.7 percent), while carpooling, transit use, walking and other forms of transportation all dropped slightly.I have seen that picture from the 50's/60's, encouraging people to carpool: "who drives alone, drives with Hitler". How low has the US fallen, since then.


Another quote from the report:
"What's troubling about this increase in commute time is that it's largely due to poor planning that takes choices away from people," said Melody Flowers, Associate Washington Representative of Sierra Club's Challenge to Sprawl Campaign. "Scattered development and haphazard road-building are leaving commuters stuck in their cars, instead of spending time with their families or at work."

Those people also do not represent the majority population in America... Yeah there are folks that live away from town... and there are folks that even commute 120 miles or more daily, but again these folks do NOT represent MOST of the population... who do in fact tend to commute only about 12 miles and run errands of about 2-3 miles.

Still a bit of a blow for the people who do have long commutes and no option other than to take the car. I won't pretend to know statistics regarding how many people live and work in the same urban sprawl and how many live and work in rural areas or have to travel between towns, but I'd hazard a guess that enough people do have longer commutes to render it largely useless to only consider the people who don't.

It's also worth considering that what "most people" do regarding travelling will often produce meaningless results given just how many people do live in cities. My home city (London, England) has a population comparable to the whole of Pennsylvania. Even if over 50% of people do have such short commutes as you have suggested unless the majority is truly huge it doesn't mean a substantial minority can simply be ignored.

I have seen that picture from the 50's/60's, encouraging people to carpool: "who drives alone, drives with Hitler". How low has the US fallen, since then.

Carpooling only works if you've got people who work similar hours regularly. All it takes is for someone to work an unusual shift or need to arrive early or work late every once in a while and the model breaks. It's bad enough finding at 4:55 that you won't be leaving at 5, but worse still to finally finish at 7 and find you have to work out how you're getting home as the carpool car left two hours ago.

It's pretty rough for the passengers too, if they find at short notice that the driver won't be leaving for a couple more hours and maybe longer.